Squirley
I.e., how on earth could you distinguish WHAT is important to Gnosticism, if all you did was read academically? I could tell you very clearly some ways that Manicheanism and Catharism diverge from the ancient Gnostics, and also the overlap, but I'm pretty sure my reasoning would be ENTIRELY different than what academics would say, even where we might agree, and even though I'd freely admit whatever similarities/differences are noted by academics.
"Gnosticism" is an academic category. It is an etic definition not an emic one (until recently). Neanderthals may have had a pretty good idea who they were as individuals and to a certain extent as a group, but they most likely had no idea who they were as "neanderthals"... that is to say, they probably had no concept of how the modern category was created in order to destinguish them from other closely related hominids.
What is important to "Gnosticism" is entirely an academic subject... even if we believe in the ideas of "Gnosticism"... since we are choosing the academic word in order to define ourselves. The question becomes whether we really fit that word, or if we have taken the word and changed it to mean something other than it's academic function. Doing so is ok (a lady may call her husband a "neanderthal" based on his eating habbits), but it is best if we do so conciously (hopefully the lady knows her husband is not literally a neanderthal according to the more technical definition of the word)
Whether something technically fits the category has nothing to do with whether it is valid, or even if it may be closely related. Gnosticism is an entirely arbitrary destinction.
This has absolutely nothing to to with whether I personally believe in the system presented in, say, Allogenes, or the Valentinian Exposition. Yes, it is true that in order to understand these texts fully I would need to be involved in the experience based aspects of the system as well... but that is completely irrelevent to the categorical function of the word "Gnosticism" and what groups fit it vs what groups don't.
Many scholors now argue that "Gnosticism" is a false designation concerning something that never actually existed. Now, I personally disagree with that. I think the term is still useful in spite of the fact that the word has become over-used and misunderstood. I simply point that out to show that the function of the word is the real point here. If you use the term in a way that is different from the academic usage, that is fine. However, doing so does not imply that academicians could not possibly know the function of their own word.
The issue of Archons, and what the teachings about Archons are all about, is central to distinguishing Gnostics from other mystics and other philosophers and various people they may have been associated with.
And yet, I have pointed out different texts that take a very different view of this subject but are still generally considered "Gnostic". So, we are then left with the problem of either fixing definition as it relates to the specific attribute you present here, or of rethinking which groups fit that definition. Otherwise we have an inconsistancy.
I just did, again. Didn't say you had to answer. But you can't claim I'm 'telling the pope what it means to be Catholic', without an eyebrow raised anyhow, smileys asside, especially if you don't answer
The "pope" comment was in reference to the "old school" comment... not the act of being "Gnostic". I agree with you that one can not understand certain aspects of the texts outside personal practice.... BUT... it is also true that one cannot understand them without historical context. One cannotclaim to be "old school" without knowing what the "old school" is. No doubt at all, historical readings are limited.... but so are modern personal readings without knowing the backdrop of the texts.
But then, what on earth could you know about Valentinus, Ptolemy, the Naasenes/Ophites, etc., without them? How could you attempt to categorize ANYTHING in Nag Hammadi as Gnostic or Sethian or Valentinian, without them?
Good question. The answer is.... the categories of "Sethian" and "Valentinian" are as arbitrary as "Gnosticism". These categories do not refer to the sects by the same name. The words themselves were taken from the heresiologists, but not to imply any destinctions that the heresiologists made between the sects. On the contrary, their function is essentialy the opposite of that intended by the works of the heresiologists. The names were chosen after the definition, which means that the definition would have simply found other names if we did not have the works of the heresiologists.
The specific sectarian destinctions are quite a different story. It is true that we are almost entirely dependant on polemicists (not necessarily the same thing as "heresiologists"). However, we have to be VERY critical about what we are reading in these accounts. Many scholors believe, for instance, that some of the sects in the heresiological accounts never actually existed (such as the "Cainites"). Others certainly did, but the heresiological accounts disagree with each other concerning their beliefs (Clement vs Ireneus on Carpocratians). Some of them appear to be misunderstandings on the part of the heresiologist concerning what the meaning was of something they read or heard (many cases in Irenaeus... or Ephiphanius' supposed experience with a group that is actually only based on his understanding of the writing).
I am not saying that the accounts can't be gleaned for any useful info... just that one either needs to be very critical so that what is actually useful can be found. Otherwise it is safer to simply try to avoid them altogether.
I.e., ok there are differences, but there are similarities. Which are more crucial, when it comes to categorization? And why?
A category, correctly applied, needs to be based on attributes that demonstrate the similarities of the groups inside it vs the differences with the groups outside it. Differences and similarities are equally important in the function of creating a categorical destinction.
If you only concentrate on the similarities, then we can make almost any "esoteric" or "mystical" group part of the category of "Gnosticism" and then the word becomes useless. Some people include ANY group that has some notion of mystical "Knowing" to be part of "Gnosticism". As previously stated, it is fine if they wish to do that but I think it is best if they at least have some idea of the original meaning of the term.
I wouldn't mind a good reference to a book that handles the issue of the 'Persian/Iranian' branch, while you are at it, though.
Rudolph deals with them as categories of origin (starting on page 275). Other scholors develope the idea in a more specific way... or, did you mean you wanted a book more specifically about the sects? Such as Manichaeans? For a good outline of Manichaean belief and practice there is "The Manichaean Body" by BeDuhn.
What about Mandeans?
I am not aware of any scholors that still classify them as "Gnostics", and even the person who originally called them "Gnostic" (causing a number of people to write of them as such for a few years), Lady Drower, later recanted the categorization.
Yes. We could be simply using the term 'moral' in different ways.
But where do you get this idea that morality is a function of providence?
A "moral" code needs no demonstration. In this particular case we are talking about the difference between it and "ethics". A moral code is simply provided by the social administrator or the religion. Where were the 10 commandments supposed to come from? Direct revelation, providence.
That is what I was refering to, I was just saying not all Gnostics were Platonists, per se.
Well, that question is something still part of the conversation.
But HOW Platonist do you assume them to be, and HOW much would be reading into things? That they drew upon Platonist thought, I agree.
To say they "drew upon Platonist thought" could mean anything. If I take a single idea from Plato while disagreeing with everything else he said, I still "drew" on his thinking. The Gnostics went much farther, obviously, and I think you probably agree with that, don't you?
Where they disagreed vehemently with the mainstream of Platonists, I think is indicated clearly enough in the Apocryphon of JOhn's treatment of the Demiurge and Archons.
What is a "mainstream" Platonist? Do you mean only the initial school? Do you include middle and neo Platonists? Do you believe that there were no Platonic schools of thought that had a negative view of the Demiurge?
Understand the traits associated with the Archons, and the texts open up a bit.
Can you demonstrate for us that the traits of the Damiurge are identical in the Apoc of John, the Tripartite Tractate, and Allogenes? Can you demonstrate that the Demiurge in the Tripartite Tractate is more negative than the one in Numinius? If that is THE defining attribute, then that line gets so fuzzy that it becomes useless.
And it is difficult to say just what role different texts had, which ones were associated. It could be that for one lesson or for certain newcomers an Aeon-only text or a text that glossed over the nature of Demiurge and Archons was used, but that for other lessons, or for those with an ability to look squarely at the problem of ancient religious texts, gods and worldly rulers, the scandalous texts were reserved.
We could equally speculate that the inverse was true... but I doubt both scenarios. I am glad, BTW, that you pointed out that you understand Voegelin made some serious categorical (historical) errors. At the very least we can be sure that much of what he was talking about is not relavent to this forum.
Again, some of Demetrios' points are relevant. If one IS ready and able, and one DOES peer behind the veil, one may not be able to convey key parts of it adequately in words/symbols/structure/logos. Yet some of what pertains to HERE in the body or psyche, may very well HAVE to rely upon bodily/physical actions/objects, or psychic symbolism and rites.
Lets not forget that in Philip, for instance, the hylic and psychic were steps into pneumaticism. A ladder is useless without it's steps. On top of that, words (according to Philip again) are for psychic communication. The truth is found inside the words, but so is falsehood. The question is not just about looking behind the words, but doing so in the correct way. Many people believe themselves to have looked behind the veil, communicating this using the Gnostic termenology is dependant on knowing the meaning of the terms in question. Otherwise, whatever is being communicated (no matter how deep it is) is something other than the point of the text.
It is easy to say that in looking behind the veil the meaning will become plain, and then we will know that the meaning is the same as any other esoteric system. I, on the other hand, an bringing into question that assumption. Having some similarities does not make to things synonymous in my view.
Be careful... it would be very easy for you to argue that if I got it I would just know what you are saying is right, but I can make exactly the same claim without any demonstration. By pointing out the problems I am, I am actually making a stronger case for the function of the Gnostic system, as something that meant to demonstrate rather than just make a claim no different than the ones we see in the "Demiurgic" texts. If you draw a line overly solid between the academic understanding and a practical one, you will teeter dangerously on this edge of turning the texts into pistic dogma. It would be to not only remove the psychic step from the ladder, but to assume that one cant have both academic and experience based knowing... and even perhaps know when and where and why they apply to the subject at hand. Surely you don't intend to go that far, right?
I know there is a growing anti-intellectualism amongst many self styled "Gnostics", but this sentiment is not in agreement with historical Gnosticism. I really don't get the impresion that you are trying to lead in that direction, so I think we should continue to avoid assumptions about the lines we are talking about just yet.
PMCV
